Davemart, if only the government overreach stopped there! 'Banning' combustion cars will hurt some people immensely. This is because BEV vehicles won't be able to cover the immense distances in North America some people have to drive. People who live in the prairies, and the rockies simply won't have the range. BEV vehicles are more expensive and can't be recharged fast enough for some people. Apartment dwellers may not have charging options. 'Banning' ICE cars will likely lead to all kinds of unforeseen issues, like battery disposal, electric grid disruption, and production hiccups. But the big lie is really exposed when you look for what share of ghg PASSENGER CARS actually cause, the 'factiod' they spew instead is 'TRANSPORT' ghg emissions. The inconvenience and economic hardship doesn't buy us much. Govt should be slowly transitioning us, not 'banning'.

This and the Rivian concepts were a non-starter- no red-blooded guy would be caught dead in such an effeminate, city boy looking vehicle. It's that simple. Just as surely as not many guys would have ever bought the new beetle. The advantages of running a cabin, running tools, having crazy amounts of torque, could clearly sell, but making the exterior styling 'pure cringe' is a deal breaker. There are cars on the road I find so repulsive you literally couldn't give me one. The 2016 Prius Prime, for example. I'm amused they think scaling back 50% will do it- in the end, they will sell 5% of the original projections. Make them look rugged, practical and smart, not metro, progressive and naive.

@ Davemart Burning hydrogen isn't zero emission at point of use either. I agree with mahonj, use methane, which is much cheaper to harvest and handle. This kind of engine, used as a range extender, would be a Godsend for electric cars in cold, rural climates where people have to drive 100 miles to buy a loaf of bread. I reject the whole notion that we must all drive zero emission vehicles soon. That is so absolute and absurd. Eliminating the vast majority of our emissions and fossil fuel use will be more than good enough. I have spoken.

@ yoatmon I can't believe the nuclear energy industry concentrates on uranium instead of thorium- kind of a similar thing. Thorium makes much, much more sense.

The drastically lower cost of flight miles, increased reliability and reduced complexity has too much potential profit for electric aviation not to take off. In fact, aviation is going to wind up being a major driver of electrification, and much more crowded skies will be one likely result. I realize Bye is bordering on Eeestor-like vapor, but the potential earnings are going to move the development forward in a way that will surprise us all.

A man needs a woman who can help fix a diesel. Since you didn't say either way, I'll have to assume they can't. The ducted injection developed by Scandia is what I want to see being implemented. That seems so promising- what gives?

Reading about this ducted fuel injection, it really does seem like a great solution- seems to be much more simple than the alternatives and thus more affordable and reliable. The DPF in my VW sportwagon was a source of trouble and ultimately I gave up the car when VW sweetened the buyback deal. But think of range extender applications- incredible fuel economies could be achieved simply and affordably.

Trying to make zero emission aircraft is foolish. Aviation companies should instead extract and sequester carbon from terrestrial sources. Surely that's cheaper and easier. In some northern european countries they are now moving towards banning air travel, which is truly unnecessary and stupid.

Green no-compromise policy, jammed down our throats. Those in rural areas, those without money, can walk or crawl the 100 miles to and from work. This public policy will work just fine, as soon as they criminalize all rational discussion of it. I'm sure that's coming.

They came up with that absurd name because flies found the old name offensive.

This article doesn't seem to provide any insight into whether this new refined system is practical for passenger cars, and it doesn't seem to indicate whether this system is prohibitively expensive or not.

@ electric car insider: Maybe that would be a big plus for a short hop type of aircraft- they will want to use the smaller airports. Electric Aviation will get it's foothold that way, because within the short range of an electric plane, price per passenger can be significantly lower than combustion flight. Electric motors can provide the insane amounts of torque and power to help. It's in the same way that Teslas can summon huge amounts of power as well, and out-accellerate all kinds of ICE powered sports cars.

I find the 30% figure to be extremely suspect. If it were even close to true, it would mean the wheel aerodynamics are the low-hanging fruit. The issue would have been addressed across many models long ago.

cujet: Thanks for your nattering nabobish comment, but electric flight promises to cut the price of a ticket by a factor of 4 or 5. Short hops are already physically possible, so I think it's only a matter of developing planes and commercialising them. Maintenace costs for electric motors is also a fraction that of jet engines. Batteries located in wings get free cooling. Short hops have much less tendency to be affected by headwinds. Don't worry about crossing the pacific at this point. Realize that for NYC to Boston or Philly to DC kind of flights, this is a winner, hands down, no comparison. And it absolutely destroys high speed rail, BTW. Far greener, far cheaper, fact.

Sorry, that's taking the blame too far. You lose your job, go out and get another one. In the meantime, instead of voting for someone who will punish the mean capitalists, vote for someone who will work to stop driving the auto plants offshore.

@SJC: Yes, but Ammonia as an energy carrier just got much easier to make, which I read as 'more affordable'. And thats really the whole thing holding up renewable liquid fuels, affordability. Liquid fuels carry far more energy by volume and weight than any battery, and ammonia really represents an option in the carrying/storing of hydrogen. We're getting there, painfully slowly, but we're getting there.

Pretty impressive achievement, but is anyone looking for that kind of acceleration in this kind of car? I wish they would offer a vehicle with all those extra things not included so I could save the weight, be rid of the complexity, and not have to pay for stuff I never use. After age 40 a car is mostly an appliance that you don't want trouble from. Toyota is doing amazing things with efficiency and reliability..... that's all I want.

@gryf: That's what alcohol is really good at- significantly higher compression ratios than that of gasoline. So the engine can wring more work out of the fuel even though alcohol has less energy per gallon than gasoline.

Many democratic states are fast becoming unlivable because of shortsighted government overreach. Republicans are not 'wiping out' environmental regulations as much as rolling them back to realistic levels. The four bluest states have the highest rates of exodus- and people are moving to republican states where regulations haven't wrecked the economies.

If they could just add a moveable solar panel to cover the windshield, it would put the car over the top for range while keeping the car significantly cooler. I love this effort.... it is amazing.

@Peter I'm hopeful, given this news, but the 'anti diesel' mindset has become firmly entrenched. I predict many will greet this news by continuing to insist that diesel be phased out.

I want to second that question, Mahonj. 43.2% of the material by weight, or 43.2% of the theoretical possible yield, or what??? Can anyone help out?

I searched for this vehicle online and I only find the 38 PHEV range version, which appears to be just released. WTHeck?

I can't get over the fact that 'they' have only tried this now, much like the solid state propulsion for ships that was messed with a decade ago. The advantages of doing so are obvious. For those nattering naybobs who have previously commented, who state that low speed propellers are just as good/better, I can argue otherwise. Solid state propulsion will be still harder to detect, with fewer/no resonances, and how do you make a propeller radar-invisible? Can you? Not easily. A slow-moving propeller is also extremely unwieldy and it wants to hit the ground, the launch apparatus, and nearby obstructions. To mahonj, who asked how VTOL could be quietly accomplished: how about a disposable hydrogen balloon? After being lifted by it, just let go of it. The hydrogen source could also be what powers the fuel cell that powers the array.... ok power density would be an issue. Shut up. To someone who complained of exposed wires at 20,000 volts: that's not unusual. Bug zappers.

@EP, any car uses petroleum or gas resources, and that includes BEVs. The amount of transportation that doesn't do so is infinitesimally small. (Not bragging, but I can do it, as my employer has solar chargers at my job and I drive a Prius Prime)